This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the number of the district Quist is running for? 108.18.33.53 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't include it in the article lede. If you want to, discuss your change here first. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Why should I discuss the article change first? I was trying to include a current event. Stan 3 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Putting it in the section on "2017 election" is fine; putting it in the article lead is electioneering. I'm on edge due to a bunch of normally-responsible editors going crazy on the Greg Gianforte page. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Information has to tie into Rob Quist in some way. Right now, it doesn't even do that and introduces an off topic discussion of Gianforte. Gianforte is not Quist. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is about Rob Quist, not Gianforte. Nothing in the paragraph added discusses anything about Rob Quist in any way shape or form. As written it is off topic. If the papers switched endorsements to Quist that could be noted. But they didn't. They just rescinded it. So far, all the information is about Gianforte, so it should go to his article, or the article about the election. The article could mention that how the assault charged impacted the election, if reliable sources make mention of it. And if that happens, we can add that information after the election.
Right now, as written, it should not be included. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What we have is an article that discusses Rob Quist. Then the article completely stops talking about Quist, and instead talks about an incident involving his opponent. I've heard explanations why the event is notable, but not how it ties into Quist. It looks like a WP:COATRACK section dedicated to information about his opponent, which is off topic. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the number of the district Quist is running for? 108.18.33.53 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't include it in the article lede. If you want to, discuss your change here first. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Why should I discuss the article change first? I was trying to include a current event. Stan 3 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Putting it in the section on "2017 election" is fine; putting it in the article lead is electioneering. I'm on edge due to a bunch of normally-responsible editors going crazy on the Greg Gianforte page. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Information has to tie into Rob Quist in some way. Right now, it doesn't even do that and introduces an off topic discussion of Gianforte. Gianforte is not Quist. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is about Rob Quist, not Gianforte. Nothing in the paragraph added discusses anything about Rob Quist in any way shape or form. As written it is off topic. If the papers switched endorsements to Quist that could be noted. But they didn't. They just rescinded it. So far, all the information is about Gianforte, so it should go to his article, or the article about the election. The article could mention that how the assault charged impacted the election, if reliable sources make mention of it. And if that happens, we can add that information after the election.
Right now, as written, it should not be included. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What we have is an article that discusses Rob Quist. Then the article completely stops talking about Quist, and instead talks about an incident involving his opponent. I've heard explanations why the event is notable, but not how it ties into Quist. It looks like a WP:COATRACK section dedicated to information about his opponent, which is off topic. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 08:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)